Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[tm30]

If Adam came about through evolution, will someone please explain how God will resurrect us out of dust at the Final Judgment? Is He going to wait around for us to re-evolve into human beings for a billion years or so?

There are very few “officially Church interpreted” passages from Scripture, but this is one of them. It’s absolute dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents in the literal sense, not the figurative. Any intimation that it is allegory or myth is heresy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If Adam came about through evolution, will someone please explain how God will resurrect us out of dust at the Final Judgment? Is He going to wait around for us to re-evolve into human beings for a billion years or so?

I don’t see why you would connect one with the other. The fact that God created man through evolution in this universe does not mean that God can only create man by such natural means. Even those of us who are persuaded by the evidence for evolution don’t think that the fundamentalist interpretation of creation is impossible much less that God cannot constitute our (perfected) bodies at will.

There are very few “officially Church interpreted” passages from Scripture, but this is one of them. It’s absolute dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents in the literal sense, not the figurative. Any intimation that it is allegory or myth is heresy.

Citation? Several people have pointed to Pius XII but his words are more cautious than you suggest here.

 

[tm30]

It is a scientific impossibility that the entire human race descended from one couple. Our species would have gone extinct within a few generations because of the inbreeding that would be required for such a task.

It is a “scientific” impossibility that anything could be created out of nothing, but here we are.

As for the problem of inbreeding, we have no evidence that inbreeding was physically detrimental during the time of Adam. Perhaps mutations began occurring over several generations and eventually became proscribed.

 

[tm30]

I don’t see why you would connect one with the other. The fact that God created man through evolution in this universe does not mean that God can only create man by such natural means. Even those of us who are persuaded by the evidence for evolution don’t think that the fundamentalist interpretation of creation is impossible much less that God cannot constitute our (perfected) bodies at will.

I don’t see why you would DISconnect one from the other. God is the most efficient power, and anything He created directly - without mediate assistance from life forms already in motion - by definition, would occur by the most efficient means possible. Since He could directly create man out of nothing, it’s a false premise that God would use an inefficient means (billions of years of evolution) to accomplish His direct action.

Citation? Several people have pointed to Pius XII but his words are more cautious than you suggest here.

His words in Humana Generii are not cautious at all. He states that polygenism is a rejection of Original Sin, and is therefore incompatible with Catholic faith. He allowed for scientific investigation of evolutionary processes, but his statement on polygenism eliminates any possibility of human beings evolving from another species. A kind of “Natural Selection” within the human species over generations is certainly worth scientific investigation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t see why you would DISconnect one from the other. God is the most efficient power, and anything He created directly - without mediate assistance from life forms already in motion - by definition, would occur by the most efficient means possible. Since He could directly create man out of nothing, it’s a false premise that God would use an inefficient means (billions of years of evolution) to accomplish His direct action.

If God chose to create man through evolution, as many of us believe, instead of a more direct means then he probably had a good reason for doing so. I have my own speculations on that.

His words in Humana Generii are not cautious at all. He states that polygenism is a rejection of Original Sin, and is therefore incompatible with Catholic faith. He allowed for scientific investigation of evolutionary processes, but his statement on polygenism eliminates any possibility of human beings evolving from another species. A kind of “Natural Selection” within the human species over generations is certainly worth scientific investigation.

No, he says: “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” (Emphasis mine.)

If (or when) polygenism becomes the standard theory of science (it is pretty close to that already) then the Church may be sufficiently motivated to figure out how the two are reconciled. Earlier I cited Catholic theologians who have explored this question and you can find more pretty easily.

What is more remarkable is how hesitant the Church has been to lend its authority to Intelligent Design theory.

 

[grannymh]

His words in Humana Generii are not cautious at all. He states that polygenism is a rejection of Original Sin, and is therefore incompatible with Catholic faith. He allowed for scientific investigation of evolutionary processes, but his statement on polygenism eliminates any possibility of human beings evolving from another species. A kind of “Natural Selection” within the human species over generations is certainly worth scientific investigation.

Of course, Pius XII is not cautious about dogmas referring to Adam. He refers directly to the dogmas declared by the Council of Trent. Footnote 12, Section 37. Whether something is apparent or not apparent is overruled by the official dogmas of Trent. Granted there are a number of theologians who dispute Catholic teaching, but they do not have the power to change the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Correct, the constant teaching and understanding of the Church has been Genesis is real history.

** What Does The Catholic Church **Teach about Origins?
(pdf version)

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

Thank you buffalo. This is very important to me, as I posted a similar thread recently: I was concerned to hear a Catechist telling the entire children’s church that "Adam and Eve are not real. It’s just a story to help us."

Some respondents to my similar question stated that this was heresy. Not all agreed, so I was very confused until the CCC was posted on this.

The OP here is asking the same thing. Isn’t it heresy to teach that Adam and Eve are just mythology?

I then went to someone to further ask about this and was sorry to see that the Catechist truly believes it is a myth. For adults to have a conversation about this is one thing. My concern is that children of elementary school age should not be hearing this and from what I have seen from the CCC, all Catholics are to take Adam and Eve, and the Creation as literal truths.

Certainly we should not be teaching young children the opposite, that it is “just a story to help us, and not real.” At that young age, they think of things as either real or “fairy tale,” and I think it would be hard to understand what an adult means by telling them that is is “not real.” I’m still very concerned about the Catechist in this case.

I always appreciate knowing what the official teaching of The Church is, so I thank you again.
Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I then went to someone to further ask about this and was sorry to see that the Catechist truly believes it is a myth. For adults to have a conversation about this is one thing.

Could you elaborate on this please? It sounds like you asked someone (another “Catechist”) who gave an answer similar to cardinal Pell.

 

[CatholicSensei]

Here is a more flattering report I found by of the National Catholic Register

thinveil.net/2012/04/debate-from-down-under-richard-dawkins.html

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Could you elaborate on this please? It sounds like you asked someone (another “Catechist”) who gave an answer similar to cardinal Pell.

Hi,
The Catechist confirmed that I had understood his comments correctly: that he believes that there was really no Garden of Eden. That Adam and Eve are simply representative figures of human kind in general, and further, that the whole story is only representing man’s choosing his own judgement as final, rather than choose the companionship and leadership of God the Father.

He re-stated his belief that this is only a story that has been passed down, (first taken literally) but that now that we are sophisticated, I suppose, we are to understand that it is only a story to help us understand our relationship to God, that the whole human race is sinful and in need of salvation, rather than two original parents who made the wrong choice and were thrown out of Eden.

I disagree with all of the above.

I am not familiar with Cardinal Pell’s views, but will be glad to compare them with the above.

I believe that the CCC insists we take the Creation story and all of Genesis literally. It seems a heresy to teach the “just a story to help us” view above, and especially harmful to teach elementary school children that “Adam and Eve” aren’t real" and that “It’s just a story to help us.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Catechist confirmed that I had understood his comments correctly: that he believes that there was really no Garden of Eden. That Adam and Eve are simply representative figures of human kind in general, and further, that the whole story is only representing man’s choosing his own judgement as final, rather than choose the companionship and leadership of God the Father.

He re-stated his belief that this is only a story that has been passed down, (first taken literally) but that now that we are sophisticated, I suppose, we are to understand that it is only a story to help us understand our relationship to God, that the whole human race is sinful and in need of salvation, rather than two original parents who made the wrong choice and were thrown out of Eden.

I take it that you are reluctant to share the identity of this Catechist with us but that it is someone whose knowledge of CCC you trust. Is this is a priest or bishop or a theologian?

I disagree with all of the above.

I understand. I have not researched this issue much but I am very curious to figure out what serious Catholic theologians, who are not seeking to water down the doctrine of original sin, are saying on this.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

I take it that you are reluctant to share the identity of this Catechist with us but that it is someone whose knowledge of CCC you trust. Is this is a priest or bishop or a theologian?

Kathryn’s response: Thank you for your gentle reply. I prefer to respect the privacy of this person, who in fact is otherwise very intelligent, but seems to prefer this “sophisticated,” symbolic view of much of Genesis rather than bow to the wisdom of actual Church teaching. In this case, I may have respect for the person’s knowledge, but not how it is applied.

I understand. I have not researched this issue much but I am very curious to figure out what serious Catholic theologians, who are not seeking to water down the doctrine of original sin, are saying on this.

Kathryn’s response: “Watered down” is a good description. In these cases, I believe that the Church teaching is to look for Her guidance, rather than err on the side of man’s questionable, 21st Century “sophistication.” We are, after all, told by Christ Himself to have a childlike faith in order to enter Heaven. :heaven:*

 

[tm30]

If God chose to create man through evolution, as many of us believe, instead of a more direct means then he probably had a good reason for doing so. I have my own speculations on that.

Therein lies the problem. You’re merely speculating, as are all those who subscribe to evolution. Where did this speculation originate? God? The Church? No, Charles Darwin, whose works were the foundational ammunition of Karl Marx, his rejection of God, and the work of those who followed him in driving Christianity out of Russia. We know that God is the efficient cause of all things. He cannot act in a directly inefficient manner. He can act indirectly in an inefficient manner when he employs man or other life forms to behave in a certain way.

No, he says: “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” (Emphasis mine.)

If (or when) polygenism becomes the standard theory of science (it is pretty close to that already) then the Church may be sufficiently motivated to figure out how the two are reconciled. Earlier I cited Catholic theologians who have explored this question and you can find more pretty easily.

You’re engaging in speculation again. What evidence do you have that the Church “may be sufficiently motivated to figure out how the two are reconciled”? You’re working backwards and assuming the Church will just agree to figure out a puzzle someone else created.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Therein lies the problem. You’re merely speculating, as are all those who subscribe to evolution. Where did this speculation originate? God? The Church? No, Charles Darwin, whose works were the foundational ammunition of Karl Marx, his rejection of God, and the work of those who followed him in driving Christianity out of Russia.

Yes, speculating, but let’s be precise: we are not speculating about evolution, we are speculating about why God would choose to create through evolution.

We know that God is the efficient cause of all things. He cannot act in a directly inefficient manner. He can act indirectly in an inefficient manner when he employs man or other life forms to behave in a certain way.

I don’t think that’s a good way to put it, in fact it is a bit contradictory.

God obvioiusly acts indirectly in many ways but we do not say that God is acting inefficiently, only that God’s purpose in operating indirectly may be obscure.

For example, God could certainly teach the CCC more directly but has chosen to use the Church for this purpose. God could raise children directy but uses parents for this purpose.

You’re engaging in speculation again. What evidence do you have that the Church “may be sufficiently motivated to figure out how the two are reconciled”? You’re working backwards and assuming the Church will just agree to figure out a puzzle someone else created.

There is a principle in law that issues are not resolved until they are ripe. Similarly we should not expect the Church to address the theological implications of every pet scientific theory. But when the science becomes settled, the Church will address it if for no other reason than it’s own commitment to truth. In fact, I think it is not wrong to say that it is already beginning to address this as Cardinal Pell has shown.

 

[grannymh]

There is a principle in law that issues are not resolved until they are ripe. Similarly we should not expect the Church to address the theological implications of every pet scientific theory. But when the science becomes settled, the Church will address it if for no other reason than it’s own commitment to truth. In fact, I think it is not wrong to say that it is already beginning to address this as Cardinal Pell has shown.

The Catholic Church has already addressed the truth of Original Sin and the reality of Adam in the 5th-6th centuries and in the 16th century.

What is happening today is that some Catholics, including some clergy, wish to change the Catholic Deposit of Faith to match scientific theories concerning the human anatomy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Catholic Church has already addressed the truth of Original Sin and the reality of Adam in the 5th-6th centuries and in the 16th century. What is happening today is that some Catholics, including some clergy, wish to change the Catholic Deposit of Faith to match scientific theories concerning the human anatomy.

True enough, I among them.

But let’s be clear: it is not merely theories of human anatomy that are of concern, but established scientific understanding of human anatomy. And it is not merely established scientific understanding of human anatomy but what that understanding implies about human history. The claim of monogenism, for example, makes scientific predictions that are open to scientific testing.

Thus this is not a conflict of seperate domains (theology vs. science) but a conflict within a single domain (human history).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Good- I liked it! Genetic Entropy all of a sudden, when they were expelled from the Eden. Good One…

So, could you describe the DNA before any mutations? I think you would receive the Nobel Prize. No. Yearly Nobel Prizes till the end of your life.

Boy, Paradise is not in this world. We are East of Eden…

Well, I’m not in any danger of winning a Nobel Prize for anything, but I have certainly seen what LOOKS like genetic entropy. One can reflect on the fact that, for example, all purebred Tennessee Walking Horses are descended from two horses and thoroughbreds are “line bred” to an astonishing degree. All polled Herefords are descended from a small group of naturally polled horned Herefords. Lots of those are “line bred” too.

In fact, “line breeding” is done as a sort of test of the genetics of high-value breeding animals. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn’t. Some failures are spectacular. Even when it works, there can be little defects that don’t show up for generations.

One could say the potential defects are already there, despite successful “line breeding” and I wouldn’t argue with that. One could say genetic mutations can occur as a result of viruses, “gene swapping” with bacteria, radiation or any number of things.

So maybe genetic perfection can go awry if the perfection is not protected.

But regardless of all that, I don’t know that Pell can justify saying the Adam and Eve story is a “myth”. Nor do i think people can justify saying the first humans came from some apelike creature by evolutionary processes alone, or even by evolutionary processes at all. Nor do I think people can say, authoritatively, that in one moment there were no “pre-humans” at all, and God created modern man in an instant, exactly like he is now. But unless we believe the universe is eternal (which has its own problems) and that it somehow has its own order written it its structure that mandate certain kinds of development, God had to intervene in the process at some point. Maybe he created the string that created the Big Bang. Maybe he created the “branes” whose collision caused the string that caused the Big Bang. Maybe he created something that caused the “branes” to exist; the intersection of dimensions or something. Maybe the dimensions themselves.

Nobody knows any of that stuff, and probably never will; any more than we will, on this earth, really know how Adam and Eve came to be, exactly. But one has to admit that a God who can (however and whenever) create the universe (or all the universes, as you might prefer) is not disabled from creating a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib…just exactly like that. Nor is He disabled from doing a long evolutionary thing in which a chosen pair has the “Aha! moment”, alone among all the other ancestors of modern man.

So, while all of this is interesting to cogitate about, we’re all going to draw blanks in the end, because we don’t really know and, as I said, aren’t likely to know on “this side of Jordan”.

 

[grannymh]

True enough, I among them.

But let’s be clear: it is not merely theories of human anatomy that are of concern, but established scientific understanding of human anatomy. And it is not merely established scientific understanding of human anatomy but what that understanding implies about human history. The claim of monogenism, for example, makes scientific predictions that are open to scientific testing.

Thus this is not a conflict of seperate domains (theology vs. science) but a conflict within a single domain (human history).

It is interesting to me that you are talking about the established scientific understanding of human anatomy. In many circles, the scientific understanding of human anatomy is newspeak for no spiritual soul.

Personally, I believe that humans have a spiritual soul because our human nature is basically the same as Adam’s. I do not consider myself mythological and see no reason to call our first parents mythological.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is interesting to me that you are talking about the established scientific understanding of human anatomy. In many circles, the scientific understanding of human anatomy is newspeak for no spiritual soul.

I know, but while the sciences often seem dominated by atheists and while atheists are always eager to wield science as a club against religion, it doesn’t follow that scientific understanding of human anatomy is necessarily contrary to the spiritual soul.

Personally, I believe that humans have a spiritual soul because our human nature is basically the same as Adam’s. I do not consider myself mythological and see no reason to call our first parents mythological.

The only difference between us is that my belief does not rest on Adam being a real historical person. I know I am not a myth (cogito ergo sum), I am pretty sure you are real, though I have never met you, I’m pretty confident that Jesus was real, though he lived a couple thousand years ago, but I have no such confidence that Adam was a real person.

 

[grannymh]

I know, but while the sciences often seem dominated by atheists and while atheists are always eager to wield science as a club against religion, it doesn’t follow that scientific understanding of human anatomy is necessarily contrary to the spiritual soul.

Pardon me, I did not mean “contrary to the spiritual soul”.

What I said was: “In many circles, the scientific understanding of human anatomy is newspeak for no spiritual soul.” It does not make any difference if a scientist is non-theist or the Queen of England, natural science is what it is, no more, no less. While I have a great deal of respect for the evolution model, it cannot address human nature. Therefore, contemporary research, while valid in itself, is being used by some people to support an attack on the spiritual soul which dilutes Original Sin, big time.

A religious story about mythological characters may be sweet to the ears; however, it leaves out “image of God”. If humans are not in the “image of God” what happens to good people at death?
Does anyone have an answer to that question?